The Experts below are selected from a list of 21399 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Rajiv D Banker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Strategic Positioning and asymmetric cost behavior
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Renee Flasher, Daqun ZhangAbstract:This paper examines the association between firms’ choice of Strategic position and their cost behavior. Since a comprehensively executed strategy permeates most aspects of company operations, we hypothesize that the Strategic Positioning of a firm affects management decisions on resource commitments, which is reflected in systematic differences in the firm’s cost behavior. Using Compustat data from 1979-2012, we document evidence that firms pursuing a differentiation strategy exhibit greater cost stickiness, on average, as compared to firms pursuing a cost leadership strategy. Furthermore, this relationship between firms’ Strategic Positioning and cost behavior is moderated by the optimistic or pessimistic expectations of managers for future sales. This paper contributes to the literature on cost management by explaining how Strategic Positioning affects firms’ cost behavior using the framework of asymmetric cost behavior.
-
cio educational background Strategic Positioning and stock performance
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Cecilia Feng, Paul A PavlouAbstract:Because the contribution of the Chief information Officer (CIO) in many Strategic IT initiatives is non-routine and difficult to evaluate accurately over a short time frame, management control theory suggests clan control for CIOs as monitoring behavior or outcome is difficult (Ouchi 1980). Accordingly, the control systems are best designed around hiring a CIO with the right education, background and knowledge, which make it more likely that the CIO's values and decisions are well aligned with the firm’s Strategic interests and motivate the CIO to display desired performance. Chatterjee, Richardson and Zmud (2001) documented that during the 1987-1998 period, the market positively reacted to announcements of appointments to newly-created CIO positions because those were perceive as a signal of improved IT management skills, enhanced IT capabilities, and subsequent firm performance. While the concept of the CIO was novel in the late 1980s and 1990s, CIO positions have dramatically gained prominence in today’s business world. Accordingly, announcements of CIO appointments are quite common nowadays, making them no longer news for investors to provoke strong market reaction. In contrast, we argue that the alignment of CIO appointments is necessary to elicit strong market reactions. Extending the view that a firm’s Strategic Positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) is a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure (Banker, Hu, Pavlou and Luftman 2011), we introduce the notion that CIO appointments must be contingent on the firm’s Strategic Positioning. Inspired by a recent debate between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs regarding the implications of different educational background (technical versus non-technical), we focus on the dynamics between the CIO’s educational background and the firm’s Strategic Positioning. Specifically, we posit that differentiators are more likely to hire a CIO with technical background, while cost leaders are more likely to hire a CIO with a non-technical background. Most important, we hypothesize that firms that align their CIO's educational background with their Strategic Positioning (specially, differentiators appointing technical CIOs and cost leaders appointing non-technical CIOs) will have superior stock performance. Results from analyzing data drawn from Nasdaq100 index and S&P500 index strongly support these propositions, emphasizing the CIO’s educational background as a major factor for firms to consider when appointing CIOs.
-
cio reporting structure Strategic Positioning and firm performance
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 2011Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Paul A Pavlou, Jerry N LuftmanAbstract:Almost 30 years after the introduction of the CIO position, the ideal CIO reporting structure (whether the CIO should report to the CEO or the CFO) is yet to be identified. There is an intuitive assumption among some proponents of IT that the CIO should always report to the CEO to promote the importance of IT and the CIO's clout in the firm, while some adversaries of IT call for a CIO-CFO reporting structure to keep a tab on IT spending. However, we challenge these two ad hoc prescriptions by arguing that neither CIO reporting structure is necessarily optimal, and that the CIO reporting structure should not be used to gauge the Strategic role of IT in the firm. First, extending the strategy-structure paradigm, we propose that a firm's Strategic Positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) should be a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure. We hypothesize that differentiators are more likely to have their CIO report to the CEO in order to pursue IT initiatives that help the firm's differentiation strategy. We also hypothesize that cost leaders are more likely to have their CIO report to the CFO to lead IT initiatives to facilitate the firm's cost leadership strategy. Second, extending the alignment if it view, we propose that firms that align their CIO reporting structure with their Strategic Positioning (specifically, differentiation with a CIO-CEO reporting structure and cost leadership with a CIO-CFO reporting structure) will have superior future performance. Longitudinal data from two periods (1990-1993 and 2006) support the proposed hypotheses, validating the relationship between a firm's Strategic Positioning and its CIO reporting structure, and also the positive impact of their alignment on firm performance. These results challenge the ad hoc prescriptions about the CIO reporting structure, demonstrating that a CIO-CEO reporting structure is only superior for differentiators and a CIO-CFO reporting structure is superior only for cost leaders. The CIO reporting structure must, therefore, be designed to align with the firm's Strategic Positioning, independent of whether IT plays a key Strategic role in the firm.
-
cio reporting structure Strategic Positioning and firm performance to whom should the cio report
Social Science Research Network, 2010Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Jerry N Luftman, Paul A PavlouAbstract:Almost 30 years after the introduction of the CIO position, the ideal CIO reporting structure (whether the CIO should report to the CEO or the CFO) is yet to be prescribed. There is an intuitive assumption among some proponents of IT that the CIO should always report to the CEO to promote the importance of IT and the CIO’s clout in the firm, while some adversaries of IT call for a CIO-CFO reporting structure to keep a tab on IT spending. However, we challenge these two ad hoc prescriptions by arguing that neither CIO reporting structure is necessarily superior, and that the CIO reporting structure should not be used to gauge the Strategic role of IT in the firm. We thus prescribe that the CIO reporting structure must align with the firm’s Strategic Positioning. First, extending the strategy-structure paradigm, we propose that a firm’s Strategic Positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) should be a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure. We hypothesize that differentiators are more likely to have their CIO report to the CEO to lead IT initiatives that help the firm’s differentiation strategy. We also hypothesize that cost leaders are more likely to have their CIO report to the CFO to lead IT initiatives to facilitate the firm’s cost leadership strategy. Second, extending the alignment-fit view, we propose that firms that align their CIO reporting structure with their Strategic Positioning (specifically differentiation with a CIO-CEO reporting structure and cost leadership with a CIO-CFO reporting structure) will have superior future performance. Longitudinal data from two periods (1990-1993 and 2006) support the proposed hypotheses, validating the relationship between a firm’s Strategic Positioning and its CIO reporting structure, and also the positive impact of their alignment on firm performance. These results challenge the ad hoc prescriptions about the CIO reporting structure, demonstrating that a CIO-CEO reporting structure is only superior for differentiators and a CIO-CFO reporting structure is only superior for cost leaders, whether or not IT has a Strategic role in the firm. The CIO reporting structure must therefore be designed to align with the firm’s Strategic Positioning, independent of whether IT plays a key Strategic role in the firm.
Paul A Pavlou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cio educational background Strategic Positioning and stock performance
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Cecilia Feng, Paul A PavlouAbstract:Because the contribution of the Chief information Officer (CIO) in many Strategic IT initiatives is non-routine and difficult to evaluate accurately over a short time frame, management control theory suggests clan control for CIOs as monitoring behavior or outcome is difficult (Ouchi 1980). Accordingly, the control systems are best designed around hiring a CIO with the right education, background and knowledge, which make it more likely that the CIO's values and decisions are well aligned with the firm’s Strategic interests and motivate the CIO to display desired performance. Chatterjee, Richardson and Zmud (2001) documented that during the 1987-1998 period, the market positively reacted to announcements of appointments to newly-created CIO positions because those were perceive as a signal of improved IT management skills, enhanced IT capabilities, and subsequent firm performance. While the concept of the CIO was novel in the late 1980s and 1990s, CIO positions have dramatically gained prominence in today’s business world. Accordingly, announcements of CIO appointments are quite common nowadays, making them no longer news for investors to provoke strong market reaction. In contrast, we argue that the alignment of CIO appointments is necessary to elicit strong market reactions. Extending the view that a firm’s Strategic Positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) is a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure (Banker, Hu, Pavlou and Luftman 2011), we introduce the notion that CIO appointments must be contingent on the firm’s Strategic Positioning. Inspired by a recent debate between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs regarding the implications of different educational background (technical versus non-technical), we focus on the dynamics between the CIO’s educational background and the firm’s Strategic Positioning. Specifically, we posit that differentiators are more likely to hire a CIO with technical background, while cost leaders are more likely to hire a CIO with a non-technical background. Most important, we hypothesize that firms that align their CIO's educational background with their Strategic Positioning (specially, differentiators appointing technical CIOs and cost leaders appointing non-technical CIOs) will have superior stock performance. Results from analyzing data drawn from Nasdaq100 index and S&P500 index strongly support these propositions, emphasizing the CIO’s educational background as a major factor for firms to consider when appointing CIOs.
-
cio reporting structure Strategic Positioning and firm performance
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 2011Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Paul A Pavlou, Jerry N LuftmanAbstract:Almost 30 years after the introduction of the CIO position, the ideal CIO reporting structure (whether the CIO should report to the CEO or the CFO) is yet to be identified. There is an intuitive assumption among some proponents of IT that the CIO should always report to the CEO to promote the importance of IT and the CIO's clout in the firm, while some adversaries of IT call for a CIO-CFO reporting structure to keep a tab on IT spending. However, we challenge these two ad hoc prescriptions by arguing that neither CIO reporting structure is necessarily optimal, and that the CIO reporting structure should not be used to gauge the Strategic role of IT in the firm. First, extending the strategy-structure paradigm, we propose that a firm's Strategic Positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) should be a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure. We hypothesize that differentiators are more likely to have their CIO report to the CEO in order to pursue IT initiatives that help the firm's differentiation strategy. We also hypothesize that cost leaders are more likely to have their CIO report to the CFO to lead IT initiatives to facilitate the firm's cost leadership strategy. Second, extending the alignment if it view, we propose that firms that align their CIO reporting structure with their Strategic Positioning (specifically, differentiation with a CIO-CEO reporting structure and cost leadership with a CIO-CFO reporting structure) will have superior future performance. Longitudinal data from two periods (1990-1993 and 2006) support the proposed hypotheses, validating the relationship between a firm's Strategic Positioning and its CIO reporting structure, and also the positive impact of their alignment on firm performance. These results challenge the ad hoc prescriptions about the CIO reporting structure, demonstrating that a CIO-CEO reporting structure is only superior for differentiators and a CIO-CFO reporting structure is superior only for cost leaders. The CIO reporting structure must, therefore, be designed to align with the firm's Strategic Positioning, independent of whether IT plays a key Strategic role in the firm.
-
cio reporting structure Strategic Positioning and firm performance to whom should the cio report
Social Science Research Network, 2010Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Jerry N Luftman, Paul A PavlouAbstract:Almost 30 years after the introduction of the CIO position, the ideal CIO reporting structure (whether the CIO should report to the CEO or the CFO) is yet to be prescribed. There is an intuitive assumption among some proponents of IT that the CIO should always report to the CEO to promote the importance of IT and the CIO’s clout in the firm, while some adversaries of IT call for a CIO-CFO reporting structure to keep a tab on IT spending. However, we challenge these two ad hoc prescriptions by arguing that neither CIO reporting structure is necessarily superior, and that the CIO reporting structure should not be used to gauge the Strategic role of IT in the firm. We thus prescribe that the CIO reporting structure must align with the firm’s Strategic Positioning. First, extending the strategy-structure paradigm, we propose that a firm’s Strategic Positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) should be a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure. We hypothesize that differentiators are more likely to have their CIO report to the CEO to lead IT initiatives that help the firm’s differentiation strategy. We also hypothesize that cost leaders are more likely to have their CIO report to the CFO to lead IT initiatives to facilitate the firm’s cost leadership strategy. Second, extending the alignment-fit view, we propose that firms that align their CIO reporting structure with their Strategic Positioning (specifically differentiation with a CIO-CEO reporting structure and cost leadership with a CIO-CFO reporting structure) will have superior future performance. Longitudinal data from two periods (1990-1993 and 2006) support the proposed hypotheses, validating the relationship between a firm’s Strategic Positioning and its CIO reporting structure, and also the positive impact of their alignment on firm performance. These results challenge the ad hoc prescriptions about the CIO reporting structure, demonstrating that a CIO-CEO reporting structure is only superior for differentiators and a CIO-CFO reporting structure is only superior for cost leaders, whether or not IT has a Strategic role in the firm. The CIO reporting structure must therefore be designed to align with the firm’s Strategic Positioning, independent of whether IT plays a key Strategic role in the firm.
Jerry N Luftman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cio reporting structure Strategic Positioning and firm performance
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 2011Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Paul A Pavlou, Jerry N LuftmanAbstract:Almost 30 years after the introduction of the CIO position, the ideal CIO reporting structure (whether the CIO should report to the CEO or the CFO) is yet to be identified. There is an intuitive assumption among some proponents of IT that the CIO should always report to the CEO to promote the importance of IT and the CIO's clout in the firm, while some adversaries of IT call for a CIO-CFO reporting structure to keep a tab on IT spending. However, we challenge these two ad hoc prescriptions by arguing that neither CIO reporting structure is necessarily optimal, and that the CIO reporting structure should not be used to gauge the Strategic role of IT in the firm. First, extending the strategy-structure paradigm, we propose that a firm's Strategic Positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) should be a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure. We hypothesize that differentiators are more likely to have their CIO report to the CEO in order to pursue IT initiatives that help the firm's differentiation strategy. We also hypothesize that cost leaders are more likely to have their CIO report to the CFO to lead IT initiatives to facilitate the firm's cost leadership strategy. Second, extending the alignment if it view, we propose that firms that align their CIO reporting structure with their Strategic Positioning (specifically, differentiation with a CIO-CEO reporting structure and cost leadership with a CIO-CFO reporting structure) will have superior future performance. Longitudinal data from two periods (1990-1993 and 2006) support the proposed hypotheses, validating the relationship between a firm's Strategic Positioning and its CIO reporting structure, and also the positive impact of their alignment on firm performance. These results challenge the ad hoc prescriptions about the CIO reporting structure, demonstrating that a CIO-CEO reporting structure is only superior for differentiators and a CIO-CFO reporting structure is superior only for cost leaders. The CIO reporting structure must, therefore, be designed to align with the firm's Strategic Positioning, independent of whether IT plays a key Strategic role in the firm.
-
cio reporting structure Strategic Positioning and firm performance to whom should the cio report
Social Science Research Network, 2010Co-Authors: Rajiv D Banker, Jerry N Luftman, Paul A PavlouAbstract:Almost 30 years after the introduction of the CIO position, the ideal CIO reporting structure (whether the CIO should report to the CEO or the CFO) is yet to be prescribed. There is an intuitive assumption among some proponents of IT that the CIO should always report to the CEO to promote the importance of IT and the CIO’s clout in the firm, while some adversaries of IT call for a CIO-CFO reporting structure to keep a tab on IT spending. However, we challenge these two ad hoc prescriptions by arguing that neither CIO reporting structure is necessarily superior, and that the CIO reporting structure should not be used to gauge the Strategic role of IT in the firm. We thus prescribe that the CIO reporting structure must align with the firm’s Strategic Positioning. First, extending the strategy-structure paradigm, we propose that a firm’s Strategic Positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) should be a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure. We hypothesize that differentiators are more likely to have their CIO report to the CEO to lead IT initiatives that help the firm’s differentiation strategy. We also hypothesize that cost leaders are more likely to have their CIO report to the CFO to lead IT initiatives to facilitate the firm’s cost leadership strategy. Second, extending the alignment-fit view, we propose that firms that align their CIO reporting structure with their Strategic Positioning (specifically differentiation with a CIO-CEO reporting structure and cost leadership with a CIO-CFO reporting structure) will have superior future performance. Longitudinal data from two periods (1990-1993 and 2006) support the proposed hypotheses, validating the relationship between a firm’s Strategic Positioning and its CIO reporting structure, and also the positive impact of their alignment on firm performance. These results challenge the ad hoc prescriptions about the CIO reporting structure, demonstrating that a CIO-CEO reporting structure is only superior for differentiators and a CIO-CFO reporting structure is only superior for cost leaders, whether or not IT has a Strategic role in the firm. The CIO reporting structure must therefore be designed to align with the firm’s Strategic Positioning, independent of whether IT plays a key Strategic role in the firm.
Stephen P Osborne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Exploring Strategic Positioning in the UK Charitable Sector: Emerging Evidence from Charitable Organizations that Provide Public Services
British Journal of Management, 2009Co-Authors: Celine Chew, Stephen P OsborneAbstract:The UK voluntary sector operates in an arguably enabling policy context. Yet, other external environmental influences have posed major challenges for charitable organizations within the wider voluntary sector. This paper aims to rectify the current lack of empirical research on how charitable organizations have responded in terms of their Strategic Positioning to the changing external operating environment and policy context. It both explores the Positioning strategies adopted by two contrasting British charities that deliver public services in different ways, and investigates the factors that have influenced their choice of Positioning strategies. The cases studied extend our knowledge of Strategic Positioning in organizations other than commercial (for-profit) ones. The findings provide new evidence that charities have begun to Strategically position themselves in response to both internal organizational factors and external environmental influences. Emerging lessons from the experiences of the case study organizations provide guidance to charity managers in planning and implementing Strategic Positioning in their organizations. The findings also underscore the need to develop theoretical and conceptual management models specific to non-profit organizations, such as charities.
-
Strategic Positioning in uk charities that provide public services implications of a new integrating model
Public Money & Management, 2008Co-Authors: Celine Chew, Stephen P OsborneAbstract:This article explores the implications of a proposed model that integrates the multi-dimensional factors influencing Strategic Positioning in charities that provide public services. It argues that the existing commercial marketing/strategy interpretations of Strategic Positioning, such as Positioning motives, Strategic Positioning process and the marketing role in Positioning, have limitations when applied to non-profit organizations, such as charities.
Celine Chew - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Strategic Positioning in voluntary and charitable organizations
2009Co-Authors: Celine ChewAbstract:Rekindling the critical analysis of the adoption of generic commercial (for-profit) management approaches in the non-profit context, Strategic Positioning in Voluntary and Charitable Organizations reveals that charities are Positioning themselves in their evolving external environment in distinctive ways that are not adequately explained by existing Positioning theories. Based on original research that examines, for the first time, the usefulness of contemporary theoretical perspectives and interpretations of Strategic Positioning derived from the existing literature in explaining the Positioning activities of charitable organizations within the wider voluntary and non-profit sector. Using a three-stage approach, which involves an exploratory survey and multiple case studies, this book provides: • evidence showing the extent of Strategic Positioning, the components of a Positioning strategy and the process of developing a Positioning strategy in charitable organizations that are involved in the provision of public services, • analysis of the key factors that influence the choice of a Positioning strategy in the charitable context, and the depiction of these factors in an original integrating model, and • an exploration into the extent to which existing strategy/marketing literature on Positioning is applicable in the charitable context. By challenging the adoption of current perspectives on Strategic Positioning derived from commercial strategy and marketing management literatures into the non-profit and non-market contexts, the author develops a theoretical framework that accounts for the uniqueness of Positioning strategy in the non-profit sector. This uniqueness is attributed to the difference in Positioning goals, the process of developing a Positioning strategy, and the influencing factors on the choice of a Positioning strategy in charities compared to commercial organizations. The implications of the findings provide useful lessons for managers of voluntary and charitable organizations in planning and developing their Positioning activities, and for other stakeholders, such as policy makers, funders, donors and industry bodies.
-
Exploring Strategic Positioning in the UK Charitable Sector: Emerging Evidence from Charitable Organizations that Provide Public Services
British Journal of Management, 2009Co-Authors: Celine Chew, Stephen P OsborneAbstract:The UK voluntary sector operates in an arguably enabling policy context. Yet, other external environmental influences have posed major challenges for charitable organizations within the wider voluntary sector. This paper aims to rectify the current lack of empirical research on how charitable organizations have responded in terms of their Strategic Positioning to the changing external operating environment and policy context. It both explores the Positioning strategies adopted by two contrasting British charities that deliver public services in different ways, and investigates the factors that have influenced their choice of Positioning strategies. The cases studied extend our knowledge of Strategic Positioning in organizations other than commercial (for-profit) ones. The findings provide new evidence that charities have begun to Strategically position themselves in response to both internal organizational factors and external environmental influences. Emerging lessons from the experiences of the case study organizations provide guidance to charity managers in planning and implementing Strategic Positioning in their organizations. The findings also underscore the need to develop theoretical and conceptual management models specific to non-profit organizations, such as charities.
-
Strategic Positioning in uk charities that provide public services implications of a new integrating model
Public Money & Management, 2008Co-Authors: Celine Chew, Stephen P OsborneAbstract:This article explores the implications of a proposed model that integrates the multi-dimensional factors influencing Strategic Positioning in charities that provide public services. It argues that the existing commercial marketing/strategy interpretations of Strategic Positioning, such as Positioning motives, Strategic Positioning process and the marketing role in Positioning, have limitations when applied to non-profit organizations, such as charities.
